Originally Posted by Gooddoc
However, I do have measurements and eyeballs that have conspired to make me stubbornly hold on to the admittedly uneducated concept that a single averaged graph below Schroeder *might* not be accurate for every listening position in a room.
You are absolutely correct that an averaged graph is not "correct" for every listening position in the room, in the sense that it does not portray the actual response at any one position. But, Audyssey is designed from the ground up to work with a spatial average, as is common, accepted acoustical practice. It identifies departures from the target curve which are persistent and confirmed at multiple positions, and it sets EQ filters accordingly. This avoids overreacting to the localized response at one point, which per the REG piece I cited, is known to be "spatially unstable", i.e., it is not usually like response at other positions for the same speaker channel.
In any case, the Audyssey graphs portray what Audyssey is designed to do: determine response at multiple positions for each channel and determine one single set of averaged filters across the frequency and time domains for each channel. The graphs merely portray the results of this before and after.
I do not honestly know what you expect Audyssey to do with the graphs. I get the impression that you want it to provide graphs of before/after response at each mike position. Let's see. With a 7.1 or 7.2 system, we get 16 graphs now. If we did 8 positions, this scheme would provide 128 graphs. I do not know about you, but I think that would be extremely unwieldy and difficult to interpret and it is not consistent with how Audyssey works anyway. It is not geared as a measurement and display tool. It is an EQ tool. Its graphic results are merely a byproduct of that.
But, you already have the much simpler measurement and display tool for independent measurements. So, why not just use that to check before/after response for your purposes and call it a day.